Better Never than Late?
If this is such a good idea, why was this bill not introduced about 6 months ago, so that it might have been signed by year end? Or perhaps they like to drop these retroactive tax bills on the IRS mid way through the year so that the IRS can spend their time on special Regulations and custodians can spend extra funds on re programming their systems.
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100202/REG/10…
Permalink Submitted by mk foss on Wed, 2010-02-03 19:11
This baffles me. It was sponsored by someone from PA – aren’t they having overspending problems like we are in CA?
I can’t think of any reason to put off the RMD requirement again.
Permalink Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 20:29
YES, PA is having overspending problems as well, but RMDs are generally TAX FREE in PA. There is no deduction on PA Income Taxes when contributions are made so the taxes are paid upfront.
I agree, I don’t see any reason to delay RMDs — the Federal Gov’t needs start reducing its debt sooner rather than later.
Permalink Submitted by Alan Spross on Wed, 2010-02-03 20:40
Perhaps this bill was introduced for his political resume, since he is now running for the Senate:
http://joesestak.com/Home/Home.html